Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - United States Senator Barry GoldwaterMany political observers cringed when candidate Barry Goldwater delivered this phrase at the Republican National Convention in 1964. It sounded like Goldwater would put no limit on United States intervention in Viet Nam.Years later, I believe Goldwater’s comment reflects the way the world really works. The words are malleable enough to justify any action taken for any cause.

What is extremism?

It depends upon to whom one refers. Goldwater spoke by implication of aggression by the old Soviet Union or North Viet Nam. Perhaps tacitly, he implied the reason there was no limit to actions we were willing to instigate was because we feared what the “enemy” might do.

So, if we believe another nation or group of people oppose us, or may take something we want, they are “extremists.” We believed that North Viet Nam was a threat to our ally South Viet Nam, so some of the forces in the Gulf of Tonkin contacted President Johnson and lied about the North Vietnamese firing upon our ships. Goldwater backed Johnson’s subsequent response to step up the bombing and to ask for Congressional support for expanded force in that region.We were not extremists. We just did what we had to do to protect an ally and our interests in that area of the world. We also did not want anyone else in the world to believe we would back down from the threat the “enemy” posed to us.

In short, we can use extreme measures, but we are not extremists.

What is liberty?

Again, it seems to matter whose liberty to which we refer. Our liberty is something we find necessary to defend. Our Declaration of Independence makes mention of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty places second after the need to live first but before our own happiness. It seems, then, that life is meaningless without liberty.

The irony is not lost upon me that we often destroy the liberty of others (by invading, bombing, disenfranchising, etc.) to make sure that we have our own. We must fail to recognize that simple reciprocity would deprive us of what we say we prize.

So what, then, do we make of vice?It seems that we do not assign the word vice to ourselves but rather to those whom we oppose. The communists, the terrorists, the extremists, the fascists and everyone else our nation has cornered at the point of a gun. The threats we perceive are wrong; the threats we use to counter the perceived threats are right.

I guess, in my heart, I know Goldwater was right. We do whatever we think necessary to make the world safe for us to dominate. Then we plead danger because people ask too many questions when the going is safe.

A small group of people owns most of the wealth This is true in the United States and in most other nations This group, which I will call the GROUP, does not want to share its wealth They make money through defense contracts and ownership of resources like oil They have the inside information on stocks They fund the politicians and usually know them personally The politicians grant them favors which help them extend their wealth They cover this truth up through their ownership of the media There is no future The future is only something we project our fears and hopes onto The past keeps changing We only re-interpret it The past happened the way the GROUP tells us it did “Lone gunman” “Nineteen” “Aggression” Those who know better change the past But the PICTURE remains the same because the GROUP holds its channel The PICTURE tells the only story spoken aloud If you speak against the PICTURE you never appear on it And you are given a label “Conspiracy Theorist” “Dissenter” “Traitor” The GROUP keeps its story going without you They have what they want The GROUP has no need to round us up It would be a waste of their time The only prison we face is in our own minds There is only one thing really happening A tug of war The GROUP vs Us The PICTURE show this as a war of words In coded language “Support the war” = “Support the troops” “Remember the victims” “Don’t engage in class warfare” The GROUP wants us to leave well enough alone As if they are fighting for us Ask a hungry person with a pizza pie in front of them How many times they are willing to split it up Ask a tax payer if they would voluntarily Pay more in taxes Ask the house in Vegas How it stays in business It is not in human nature to share what one believes they need The GROUP is full of humans They believe they need more power, more resources, more money They get it by pushing for wars, “national security” and other hoaxes If you accept their story, you will get what you deserve But if you don’t - - - Turn off the PICTURE and tell the GROUP you have your own story---READ THIS SELECTION OF ON-TOPIC COMMENTS BY RANDOLPH BOURNEIt can be found on Stewart Ogilby's site "BigEye"

As a child, there was a phrase I had to say every day… ONE NATION UNDER GOD My kindergarten class says there is a God, but my parents don’t. Why should I recite this pledge? BECAUSE I SAID SO The principal says I must say it. Maybe he is wrong. YOU’RE A LOSER* IF YOU BELIEVE THAT I tried to trust God, but my friend died in a car accident. GOD MUST HAVE HAD A PLAN Then I do not care for God. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD… Then why does he let innocent people die? HAVE FAITH Faith in what? A God I cannot see? A Bible I read and do not believe? ONE NATION UNDER GOD My nation sends troops to fight wars that make no sense. OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER DO THAT Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I CANNOT REVEAL MY SOURCES What? SUPPORT THE TROOPS I support the troops coming home and for all of them to stop supporting wars based on lies. THE TERRORISTS DID IT What terrorists are you talking about? I CANNOT REVEAL MY SOURCES Who can I trust?

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD...

I give up. Is there something you can tell me not connected to God or country?

"RAYMOND SHAW IS THE KINDEST, BRAVEST, WARMEST, MOST WONDERFUL HUMAN BEING I'VE EVER KNOWN IN MY LIFE."**---

*or a communist, a traitor, a conspiracy theorist, etc. **from The Manchurian Candidate, a movie based on the novel by Richard Condon

If I could simply have an adequate opportunity to respond to some of the things people say to me, I would feel a lot better about the society in which we live. But until that happens, I will have to use the Internet to tell the people who make the following comments to think twice:

We need less government. Yeah, I bet we do. Until we get robbed and need a police officer. Until our neighbor says our land is really theirs and we need an independent person to decide. Until the factories fill the air with filth we cannot breath and we need air quality standards enforced. Until the friend of an in-law is failing to pay his taxes and we need the IRS to make sure we don't have to pick up the tab. If you never need the government, you probably do not have any problems to worry about, anyway.

Taxes are too high. Does anyone ever say that taxes are TOO LOW? How much is too much? Nothing? If we did not pay any taxes, we could not pay for the government, through its agents, to assist us when we need it (see above). We cannot receive something for nothing anywhere else in society, so we have no reason to believe that our government works for free.

The United States is a Christian nation. Where did this idea come from? It certainly appears nowhere in the Constitution, the basis of our legal system and the very place one would look to find such an idea. The Constitution also fails to mention the words "God," "Jesus Christ" or "Christianity" even a single time. The Constitution instead forbids the establishment of any religion. The Founders, most of whom were not Christians, made sure to write that in. And while it is true that a majority of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, a majority does not necessarily speak for the whole group. A majority of people in the United States are white-skinned, but would anyone call the United States a "white nation." I don't think so.

Our public schools are bad. Am I the only person who believes he received a good public education? I can only speak of my experience, where my teachers taught me to read, write, do math and sometimes to even think for myself. Some of my classes were crowded, but that is a symptom of overpopulation more than it is of poor education. My early schooling was not well integrated, but that is a problem of the enforcement of housing laws, the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and the availability of schooling and jobs for the parents. My public schooling gave me the chance to move on to higher education, for which I am grateful. I am sure there are bad public schools, but hearsay talk of a poor school system does not sway me from my first-hand experiences.

There is a liberal bias in the media. Where is it and how powerful can it possibly be? Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were elected twice each. Surely a powerful liberal media would have stopped them. While it is true that many reporters identify themselves as liberals and/or Democrats, they have to answer to publishers who typically do not share these views and who have the final say in what gets published or shown on television. Powerful corporations own most of the media and as corporations have the primary focus of making money, they do not have much of an interest in presenting a liberal agenda that is based upon human rights, equality and fighting global warming unless it can somehow make profits.

So if people continue to say this type of nonsense, I will just have to ask what they mean by what they say. Maybe they just mean that they heard it from the right-wing talk show hosts, who are protected by the government with free-speech rights when they tell us how bad the schools and media are.